Vancouver science teacher issues quality warning

Spending cuts in Vancouver schools threaten the quality of high-school science classes, says the department head at Templeton secondary school.

“Science class is . . . at risk of becoming little more than a collection of broken equipment, partial class sets or, at best, science reduced to teacher-led demonstrations of phenomena,” Mike Hengeveld wrote in a letter to school principal Ellen Roberts, district superintendent Steve Cardwell and school board chairwoman Patti Bacchus.

Others should also be sounding an alaram about a 56-per-cent funding cut that has left schools with a mere $4.61 per student for expenses, he’s quoted as saying in the Vancouver Courier. Read the story by Naoibh O’Connorhere. (Photo of Hengeveld taken by the Courier’s Dan Toulgoet.)

Unfortunately John is in denial of what he originally said and the facts he presents. I am glad he has said he will no longer post on this thread, which means I can go back to enjoying the comments on this blog and not spend time posting comments that should not be needed. I truly do enjoy the educational articles and comments found here and would rather spend my time there. John chose to ignore the following concern. John said “in the last election the NDP education platform endorsed what the Liberals were doing.” From the NDP platform: “Strong public education is key to building strong communities and securing BC’s future. But for the last 8 years, Gordon Campbell has hurt public education by closing schools, increasing class sizes and cutting supports to students. One hundred and seventy-seven schools have been closed, placing pressures on communities and putting hardship on families. There are over 14,000 classrooms that violate the government’s own class size and composition laws. Carole James and the NDP will involve parents, students and all education partners in the delivery of public education. “ From John’s latest: “Do the math if you can. 80 million extra actually spent by the Liberals despite a major decline in government revenue. That’s 30 million more than the NDP promised based on a much rosier economic scenario than actually occurred.” Sorry for the misunderstanding John, from your first post: “After the election the Liberals spent somewhat more on education in the following budget than they promised.” And your second post: “The NDP plan offers and additional 50 million for K-12 in 09/10. (Page 52 of their platform) The Liberals increased it by 80 million. Source: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/…/analysis-overview.pdf” These two lead me to believe that the $80 million was the amount added to the original 09/10 Liberal budget. Not the increase over the 08/09 to get the 09/10 budget. Now that you have clarified that, we do see that the $50 million for the NDP is over the 09/10 Liberal budget. If you do the math the NDP budget was larger by $50 million. Your original post implied no class limits under the NDP: “The main difference the NDP offered was the removal of the class size limits from the School Act.” I never said you stated there would be no class limits. Only when called on your original statement did you say: “What I say is that the NDP promised to remove them from the School Act and put them back on the table during bargaining. This is how they intended to keep under class size limits: by putting them back in the collective agreements.” There would be no need to comment on your second version as it does not mislead the readers. We wonder why you did not say this in his original post. For the record I am not an NDP supporter but one who is tired of the mistruths coming from the Liberals. From the first time they were elected they have said they would do something and have turned around and done something else, quite often the opposite. The latest that comes to mind is the income tax reduction that cost use ¼ million dollars to find out about. Unfortunately only 5% of the population watched, hardly a wise use of tax dollars. On an educational note we are still waiting for the plan of how we will raise all grade 4 students up to standard prior to them leaving grade 4. We have been told how much it will cost just not how it will happen. John: “Your blatantly false statement that my link said nothing about actual funding and that the Liberals didn’t increase operational spending by 80 million in 09/10 is simply defamation.” Me: “Unfortunately for John the link he provides for the Liberal “extra” 80 million says nothing of the sort. Perhaps he provided the wrong link.” Never said the link said nothing about funding. I believe I explained the misunderstanding above. Why does John credit those who do not agree with him with things not said? John: “In fact the number of classes over in student count has decreased about 75% since those limits were put into place by the Liberals.” There were no limits from 2001 or 2002 (not sure when the actual change happened) until 2006 as the Liberals tore up legal contracts. Now John thinks it is great that the numbers are down 75%. He sort of glosses over the class composition problems caused by the Liberals. John: “You overlooked in your long post my request of an explanation as to how the NDP intended to get under those class limits by increasing the operating budget for K-12 by only 50 million, or a little over 1%. “ The increase was actually $130 million over the 08/09 budget. Enough for now, off to do some reading.

Proof Please: Look on page two of the reference I gave and you will find a table detailing expenditures. (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/accountability/district/revenue/1011/pdf/analysis-overview.pdf) Here are the relevant years in case you are too challenged to actually look at the original source: Year Total Budgeted Revenue 2008/2009 4,798,247,734 2009/2010 4,878,898,951 Do the math if you can. 80 million extra actually spent by the Liberals despite a major decline in government revenue. That’s 30 million more than the NDP promised based on a much rosier economic scenario than actually occurred. The Liberals are funding education at a higher level than the NDP promised. Given this, how could the NDP live up to all those promises they made in vague terms about how they would strengthen education? The simple answer is that they couldn’t. If the Liberals did this you would call it a lie. Why don’t you take the NDP to task here? Biased are you? Your blatantly false statement that my link said nothing about actual funding and that the Liberals didn’t increase operational spending by 80 million in 09/10 is simply defamation. Illustrate where I say the NDP would not have class limits. I say nothing of the sort. This is your fiction. I say they would put them back into the collective agreements. For the classes over limit, most of those are over because of the limit on special needs students of 3, not because of class size. (And many of those remaining classes are over due to requests of the teacher because they are classes like Band or Choir.) In fact the number of classes over in student count has decreased about 75% since those limits were put into place by the Liberals. Do you have a creditable unbiased source? The BCTF propaganda machine isn’t one, especially as they loudly complain that those limits should be removed from the Act and put back into collective agreements. For the grieving, the reasons that the boards were found at fault were because they failed to consult with the teachers appropriately. Had they consulted properly, these actions would have failed. Not sure how you think this is the fault of the Liberals. (But then in your mind EVERYTHING must be the fault of the Liberals.) You overlooked in your long post my request of an explanation as to how the NDP intended to get under those class limits by increasing the operating budget for K-12 by only 50 million, or a little over 1%. This is especially tough when the collective agreement wage increase to the teachers in that year was 2%. Your solution, or is this just another fantasy of yours? And, as there are objections to hijacking the thread, this will be my last post on this subject here. I have better things to do with my time.

I have no desire to high jack any threads. When a poster says things that are not true it is necessary for someone to correct the information. The fact that this thread was partially high jacked was not caused by me. Once again John some of your statements do not pass the test of proof. John said “in the last election the NDP education platform endorsed what the Liberals were doing.” From the NDP platform: “Strong public education is key to building strong communities and securing BC’s future. But for the last 8 years, Gordon Campbell has hurt public education by closing schools, increasing class sizes and cutting supports to students. One hundred and seventy-seven schools have been closed, placing pressures on communities and putting hardship on families. There are over 14,000 classrooms that violate the government’s own class size and composition laws. Carole James and the NDP will involve parents, students and all education partners in the delivery of public education. “ Readers can determine for themselves how credible John’s post is. John provides the following. “The NDP plan offers and additional 50 million for K-12 in 09/10. (Page 52 of their platform) The Liberals increased it by 80 million. Source: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/…/analysis-overview.pdf” The NDP statement is accurate. Unfortunately for John the link he provides for the Liberal “extra” 80 million says nothing of the sort. Perhaps he provided the wrong link. In any case he is comparing what the NDP said they would do and what he he says the Liberals did. Apples and oranges? From my original post: “John Puddifoot said: “The main difference the NDP offered was the removal of the class size limits from the School Act.” Once again John is guilty of not telling the whole story. He implies there would be no class size limits under the NDP yet he knows that is not true.” John confirms he knew his implication is not true in his latest post. “What I say is that the NDP promised to remove them from the School Act and put them back on the table during bargaining. This is how they intended to keep under class size limits: by putting them back in the collective agreements.” We wonder why he did not say this in his original post. John: “please provide proof of your claim that parents & teachers “forced” the Liberals to introduce Bill 33, and how a provincially enacted statue is weaker than the provisions of a collective agreement.” Glad to, later part first. All one has to do is compare class size and composition prior to the legally binding contracts being torn up (2001) to what it is post Bill 33 (May 2006). The government did not provide school districts with any new funding when it implemented this legislation. John please read the weak wording in Bill 33 and compare with the clauses that were torn up. There is no doubt which is more effective. Just go to each district and call up the old contracts that are available. From John’s link: “There are over 14,000 classrooms that violate the government’s own class size and composition laws.” That would be three years after Bill 33 was introduced. On October 7, 2005, teachers went on strike demanding better learning conditions for their students. “BC teachers took a courageous stand last fall and have continued to speak out on the need for class-size and composition guarantees. Teachers were joined by parents, the labour movement, and concerned community members, calling on the government to improve conditions for BC’s students. Today, April 27, the government tabled legislation in response to this widespread concern. Bill 33 will be debated in the legislature next week.” http://bctf.ca/publications/SchoolStaffAlert.aspx?id=4246 John: “I also note that the teachers didn’t grieve against the provincial government, but brought action against the Boards who actually decide on the number of teachers and failed to live up to their statutory requirements as enacted by the Liberals.” Never said the grieves were against the Liberals. They did cause the grievances and did wear the bad press that resulted from the teachers winning grievances. Yes the boards do hire the teachers but are limited by the funding from the Liberals. Remember the Liberals did not originally fund for the provisions of Bill 33. Your provided link clearly indicates there was not adequate funding as late as 2009. The number of non-compliant classes was listed as 14, 000. There may be some funds available now due to the bad press. We will never know due to the current funding formula. Yes the boards do have statutory requirements several of which have been downloaded without adequate or no additional funding. This topic has been well discussed on this blog. Yes John a poster was wrong on more than one thing and the readers know who that was.

How quickly can a blog get hijacked? Simply mention Liberals, NDP and or Gordon Campbell. All BC governments want graduates to be competitive on the world stage, but fail to realize that students in Asia focus on science and math and less art, drama and social studies. Tell me how recent immigrants without a great grasp of English excel in science? Cutting funding to science is typical of the “science is evil” crowd. Blame all of societies problems on science is their mantra. Get to the students early and they too will learn the “truth.” Look at the photograph and play how old is that equipment? The lab benches are from the 60’s. The two van der graf generators are from the 80’s. One of the generators probably does not work given the angle of the tube. Where are the priorities in high school? Perhaps the awards for graduation are a good measure. At Kits one award for science, one award for math, countless awards for art, drama and PE.

Proof Please. Anyone can look up the platforms of the two parties, and that is all I really need to reference. But as you seem unable to perform this task, I will give you the links. The proof is in the election platforms from the last election for the NDP (http://www.bcndp.ca/files/u108/BCNDP09_Platform_2009-_Final-April9_last3.pdf) and Liberals (http://www.bcliberals.com/media/FULLPLATFORM.pdf) The NDP one you must download. I note that there were a whole bunch of things the NDP claimed the Liberals were going to do that didn’t happen. Just election fear mongering. I also note the NDP platform is amazing light on detail of exactly how they are going to do things, pay for them and on supporting evidence. For differences, you must compare the two documents as this is what both of the parties promised they would do. I note the Liberals delivered on their promises to education. The NDP plan offers and additional 50 million for K-12 in 09/10. (Page 52 of their platform) The Liberals increased it by 80 million. Source: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/accountability/district/revenue/1011/pdf/analysis-overview.pdf Hard to see if the NDP was going to only commit to an extra 50 million how they were expecting to get under those class size limits. Where do I say that there would be no class size limits? What I say is that the NDP promised to remove them from the School Act and put them back on the table during bargaining. This is how they intended to keep under class size limits: by putting them back in the collective agreements. Now as I have provided proof for my claims, please provide proof of your claim that parents & teachers “forced” the Liberals to introduce Bill 33, and how a provincially enacted statue is weaker than the provisions of a collective agreement. Good luck with that last one by the way. Looks like you are, once again, being misleading and simply engaging in the time honoured tradition of attempted character assassination. I also note that the teachers didn’t grieve against the provincial government, but brought action against the Boards who actually decide on the number of teachers and failed to live up to their statutory requirements as enacted by the Liberals. One more thing you got wrong.

John Puddifoot said: “The main difference the NDP offered was the removal of the class size limits from the School Act.” Once again John is guilty of not telling the whole story. He implies there would be no class size limits under the NDP yet he knows that is not true. Remember it was the Liberal government that tore up legal contracts that contained working class size and composition clauses. The result was no limits until the parents and teachers eventually put enough pressure on the Liberals to introduce Bill 33. It took grieves by teachers to have the Liberals actually act on the weak provisions of Bill 33. Compensating the teachers the year after the law is broken does nothing for the children in the over crowded classes the year before. Several times he has said the NDP endorsed what the Liberals were doing in education and that funding levels would be essentially the same under either party. He has never provided any links to verify his opinions. Opinions are all they are at this time. John please supply links that backup your opinions. Currently they are tainted by your bias.

If I recall correctly from the VSB budget, the reduction of each school’s flex budget last year was but 10%, not 56%. Where does the 56% figure come from? Note that schools frequently don’t share how they spend this flex budget. So we may never know. We can do some investigation though. From the Oct 7, 2010 agenda of VSB Ctte V, Finance, I note this item on flex budgets: http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/10Oct12_commV_Item4.pdf If you scroll down, to the account balances in the schools, I note that Templeton is bringing forward a deficit of 31,167 from 2009/10, this on funding this year of 105,001. It would seem that Templeton simply overspent last year, and this is the actual cause of the “cuts” Sandy, the figures for all the other schools in the district are in this report too. There is no systemic difference between east and west. And I note that some schools run surpluses, the highest being Churchill with an extra 64K to spend this year. The three biggest deficits coming forward seem to be Prince of Wales at 61K and Hamber at 56K both on the west side, and Windermere at 65K. Of course the actual situation does not stop some people from blaming the government. As far as what the option for those who want more funding for education, that would be more taxes or less services in other areas. Don’t think any party is calling for that right now. For the differences between the NDP and the Liberals, in the last election the NDP education platform endorsed what the Liberals were doing. (I was quite surprised given all the claims on this blog prior to the platform being released as to what the NDP would do.) The two platforms on education were essentially the same funding-wise. (After the election the Liberals spent somewhat more on education in the following budget than they promised.) The main difference the NDP offered was the removal of the class size limits from the School Act. Nothing to do with funding.

This is part of Gordon Campbell’s legacy. But one wonders if it will change with a new Liberal premier. Or for that matter would the NDP be more supportive of public education? It’s not clear to me that they would. What is the option for those who support a strong, well-funded public education system?

I agree the province needs to adequately fund education and the present gov’t has underfunded education for years. But this item is also fodder for east side parents to send their kids to west side schools, is it not? Would a science teacher at Point Grey or Magee say the same thing? Just a question.

this should be pointed out to be not just a problem in Science class, but EVERY class out there. Science just so happens to be the one with a bit more weight behind it perhaps because for some reason people see acedemic aims as the all mighty end of education?!